Well, only so much as they acted on it and made him bankrupt. I'll advise him to do so. I don't know what the SD was for, it may have been a credit card.

Thanks 42, so I can tell my friend to examine the process of the SD because if either the document has errors or service wasn't correct, then the bankruptcy can be overturned? And obviously, if there were any errors in the bankruptcy process that would be grounds to have it revearsed. I assumed that once the court had ruled on the SD, then any errors in it were "made good". thanks a lot. I don't know if there were any errors, but its worth looking

Don't tempt me!! Thanks for everyone's comments. Letter gone to them, asking them to confirm exactly what their position is and exactly what they will accept, and exactly who is in charge of these decisions. Then I'll take it from there I've asked the question before I make any allegation of breaking this or that law because if I make the allegation first, they'll deny it and they won't state what their exact position is, (because they will know where I'm going)

sorry BB, your 'letter before action' statement made me think you intended legal action. He can simply write to them and say he will report the matter to the ICO. However, consider: almost no-one will be able to process a SAR in 7 days. Its just not possible. making a complaint to the ICO will take on my experience, about 10 months before you get an answer that they do not consider the DPA has been broken. Even if you can show that the cheque was cashed, the ICO will not take action if the data controller says the request was lost,but when made aware of it they fulfilled it as quickly as possible. Even if the do not respond within the allowed 40days, they ICO won't take action if the controller can show it was down to unusual circumstances (eg flu) or things outside their control (their IT service company let them down so equipment needed for the SAR wasn't available) The ICO website says that even if the DPA has been breached but the breach has been fixed, they are unlikely to take action. Certainly, no one is going to get into trouble In this case, the poster has left it for 18 months. He may have had good reason, but if the SAR was temporarily misplaced, not chasing it up for so long is likely to have resulted in it being totally lost, and the ICO will treat an approach now, as a new request. The data controller will simply have to say that procedures are different now and the ICO will go away. In my opinion, it would be best, if proof of payment exists to ask why they didn't process the SAR and ask them to do it now. It is possible that the SAR was processed and delivered to the wrong address, maybe an empty house with a similar street, or to someone awkward who threw it away rather than contacting the sender. It could have been lost by the carrier.

Thanks 42. My friend is a bit shamefaced about the bankruptcy and I found out by accident. All I know is that it was as a result of a Stat demand. I was simply wondering if the bankruptcy hearing made any errors in the SD irrelevant, ie, if errors in the SD or its serving are 'wiped out' if they were not challenged at or before the bankruptcy hearing. My thoughts are that if there were errors in the SD or its service etc, then as the bankruptcy hearing was brought because of the SD, those errors might invalidate the bankruptcy, and if my friend could show there were errors, then the bankruptcy could be rescinded, the SD set aside, and the creditor would have to go back and start again. Wishful thinking I imagine, because I suspect that any errors in the SD can not be challenged after the bankrupcy. I don't want to get my friends hopes up so I don't want to mention it unless it is possible to challenge the SD after the bankruptcy.

I know what you mean, I asked the banks data controller and the ICO 'person' exactly that question. Both said that the DPA allowed the bank to decide what they needed as proof. Fine, I said, so what if the bank decides that the Southend scenario (above) is their policy, where does it say that the bank can demand ANYTHING no matter how ridiculous, how difficult to satisfy or how unreasonable ? The bank said they were doing none of those things and the ICO had told them so, the ICO was unable to tell me at what point a policy stops becoming robust and secure and becomes restrictive and obstructive. I think thats because they don't have the ability to actually give advice on whats reasonable or not. I am sure the bank is not actually breaking the DPA, it has a policy that allows SARs to be processed, it is simply being unnecessarily restrictive and obstructive, is unreasonable, and as a result is not acting within the spirit of the DPA. If they never provide anyone's data, they can be sure never to give it to the wrong people - but that doesn't mean they are complying with the DPA either. The ICO however, cannot see this.

I wouldn't threaten legal action unless youre able to take it. draw their error and take it from there. If you have proof they took your money, so much the better. In reality if you cannot proove you paid, it may be best just to make another request. In terms of the overdraft letter, I would say you don't recall receving notification of the terms and conditions of theoverdraft as you are entitled and ask for a copy of it from your file. As dotty says, they may have made a mistake with the letterheads. if thats the case, TOUGH. report them anyway. Dormant companies shouldn't have stationery near the printer, and whoever prints the letter should notice the paper its on. Let them explain their conduct to the authorities. There is a similar case here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?299271-DCA-bypassing-141-withold-number.&p=3343957#post3343957

also, Companies House, and HMRC, on teh basis that a dissolved company cannot trade because it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist it can't pay tax or national insurance or VAT

thanks have done. I fear the worst, but its worth asking

what i meant is that AFAIK,there isn't a clause in the agreement that grants me access to my data, so I'm nottaking advantage of any contractual right to access my data, so I don't see that the clause quoted from teh CPUTR applies. It seems obvious to me that they are abusing their position, but the so-called data guardians in the ICO don't agree. Part of the problem is that the DPA allows the bank to decide what proof of ID they will accept. Hence the bank is within its rights to accept a signature. The difficulty comes when the person cannot reproduce that signature for whatever reason. In those situations, _I think_ the DPA is being breached, otherwise, the Southend town hall scenario could be used as a legitimate proof of ID policy. There has to be a fair distinction between demanding sufficient proof, without being unduly restrictive, and there should be flexibility when a person is unable to satisfy the policy. Just because you can't satisfy their policy doesn't mean you're not that person. Having just one criteria for ID is quite stupid.

thats interesting. I just did a quick search, and you may be right, but it may be because the switchboard you are calling has been 'tuned' to retrive the calling number from the data stream used by the phone company to bill you. Obviously the billing info is always sent, so its possible for some to retrive it. DCAs obvilusly like to have up to date contact info, and a sneaky tactic like that is up their street. The number may also be seen by anyone if you press the redial button rather than redialling manually with the 141. Looks like a cheap mobile is the way to go, or else use Trucall to block them, or a smartphone with call blocking software to weed out withheld numbers and those you don't want to hear from. That and never phoning them unless from a public payphone. Actually, using a payphone and giving them the number is a good idea.

They are exempted from one part of it which is the need to get your signature and to supply an agreement which conforms to the CCA. They still need to issue a letter within a prescribed period of taking the overdraft which contains the terms. In my opinion, and others, CCA request can still be made, but there is much debate about it. Overdrafts seem to be a relatively small problem. You could simply ask them for a copy of the letter containing the terms, or make a SAR request which should contain it. I think I remember reading that if the overdraft is exempt from that part of the CCA if the bank has permission from the DTI(?) the issuing of the terms in a letter is a requirement for that exemption (I'm sure someone else knows the technical terms) If they didn't issue that letter, then the overdraft is covered by all parts of the CCA so it needs a CCA agreement ) - which they won't have.

are you sure it says " This letter states that they have now been instructed to proceed with court action if I do not pay in full immediately." and not something along the lines that they have been instructed to draw up papers, or that they will have no choice other than to recommend court action? It doesn't really matter. What they have done is their standard procedure. Ignore everything you say and ask for, state that the toiler paper they have is proof of the debt, and to keep demanding payments. I think I had several letters telling me they were going to court. Then they went away all together. What I would do is to make a SAR against Wescot to find out what they have, records of payment etc, and against the original lender to see if they have a signed agreement, and what the balance is and charges are. Your next letter from RW may well be a 'last chance to avoid court action'. What you can also do is to make a complaint to the CSA that RW have not responded to your CCA request. Although the CSA is pretty useless, complaints made to them do get acted on by the DCA albeit in a superficial way, and the DCA has a duty to supply details of all complaints to the the FSA If the lender does go to court, I think your first defence is that they haven't complied with the CCA, nor dealt with your allegations that they are claiming an inaccurate balance.

I can imagine youre worried, and all the advice that nothing will happen to you does not completely remove that worry. Even if there is nothng practicle that these sharks can do, the worry that they will keep pestering you is still there. And as you have been nice and paid them all this time, they will assume that a bit of pressure will start you paying again if you stop. Even if you adopt the position that your benefits are ring fenced and cannot be disposable funds, they will disagree, and the prospect of constant phone calls and letters is pretty scary. We've all been there. I am as puzzled as you about the situation. Do you have the paperwork for each of these debts? Have you ever checked if these debts are real and are enforceable? What are the debts for? Do you own your own home? If you don't, a debt relief order may be suitable. It depends on your savings and assets etc, but basically, you pay what the court decides for one year, after that, all debts in the Order are cleared. I'm not saying you should do it, just that as a fall back position, if applicable, you would be able to see light at the end of the one year long tunnel. As for the CAB, as they are government funded, could you imagine political fall out from the financial sector if the CAB were giving advice on what debts could be ignored? The bansk needed to be bailed out by the government because of bad debts (and incompetence), yet a government funded service is helping to create more 'bad debt'! I too tried the CAB and found them pretty useless, never advising checking on whether the debts were enforceable and valid, or if unfair charges had been added etc, no, just work out how much you can afford and pay it.

if its a dormant company, they shouldn't be sending out letters because the letter they sent (a collection letter) is part of their trade, so its an admission they are not dormant. Companies house may be interested in that because the returns submitted to companies house that say they are dormant is obviously not correct.

as said, a letter for hire. What I do is to ignore the contact instructions and write to the solicitor (if you feel need to write at all). If you write to the solcitor (who just handed over a tonne of stationery for Wescot to use as they liked) they have to pass it over to Wescot. Twice the work and cost. You may also look for irregularities in the letter and complian to the senior partner and to the Solcitors Regulation Authority, just to create extra work. It may not stop them, but it makes the practice less profitable, and they are likely to give up sooner. They pick on the weaker, and anyone who snarls back at them appears to much hard work. Don't expect any complaint you make to be upheld, because they won't, but if a solcitor sees that letting wescot use their stationery might result in a complaint that is upheld, bu in any case results in extra work that consumes more resources than Wescot pay for, economics come into effect.

if the debt is yours and it sounds like it is, check that the debt is enforceable. If it is, contact them and offer a payment £1/week/month, what ever you can afford. Ignoring it won't make it go away. If it isn't enforceable, then there are ways to fight it.

I don't think they can see the number. Can you change the number, just in case? Once they have it they tend to keep using it regardless of what you say. I would get a cheap mobile or a VOIP phone and turn it off when youre not using it. Disable voicemail, and eventually they'll stop calling it. Just get another cheap SIM and you can use the phone and they can never contact you.

ouch! I have a headache now lol. Thanks both. I did see something on here about the CPUTR and was mulling it over. thinking how it could be brought into effect. There's no doubt in my mind that a company that imposes its own interpretation on a statute, and its own requirements on top of the provisions of that statute, risks the accusation of an unfair practice. Whilst they can send DCAs after me, and threaten legal action (they haven't) they are withholding contractual details and T&Cs that allow me to verify what they say, and even to check if their pre-condition is required as part of the T&C. Human rights? didn't know anything about that, will have to look it up. Thing is, when you say "any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract", I'm not exercising my rights under the contract with the bank, only rights under the DPA, so not sure that that applies. I can then, after confirmation of what they require, reply that they are breaking this or that law and take it from there. (I suppose). Obviously, I would rather avoid court action, the cost, stress, and time, and like all these sharks, that's what they are counting on, so if I can pressure them (and if the Data Controller is personally liable for a criminal conviction, which is how I read your collective advice, it should induce a certain amount of buttock clenching), it may work. And if it does, it can be used by others. As I said, they have adopted a very good tactic if they can get away with it, and if others adopt it, it could make things very difficult for other consumers. I was thinking of sending a letter to teh CEO and Data controller. and confirming that they only thing they will accept is a signature, and that no other data will do, just to make it totally clear what their position is. Thats kinda what you were saying tingy but I wasn't going to quote the relevant laws. (Don't see why I should tell them what laws they're breaking, its their job to know the law, and any mistake I make in the laws I quote give them wriggle room to say they are not breaking this or that law, rather than answering the question.) That gives me time to swot up on those laws.

thanks tingy. I think Pilling is the old ceo, I wrote to the new one Colebrook. The letters were just passed to the data controller. I really have complained that they have no right to obstruct a SAR by imposing requirements that are not in the DPA, and various other complaints, and that a signature is not proof of ID (based on authoritive work inclusing high ranking judges and barristers), and that the use of a signature for ID purposes is against the guidelines of the ICO. All fell on deaf ears. Unfortunately, when the ICO say they are doing nothing wrong, it makes it kind of hard to persuade the bank otherwise. Common sense says that its unreasonable and dodgy to supply some statements in response to a letter, but refuse a SAR from the same hand and address. Common sense and ICO guidelines says that when they've been writing to an address for several years, that may be regarded as sufficient ID, when you also supply other info such as previous addresses and date of birth, the chances of it being anyone else kinda drop to an incalculable level. I've asked them if they suspect I have been.am being impersonated or that my mail is/has been interfered with, and got no response. They refuse to budge. It is their policy to validate the signature. No common sense, no reason, "the guy's lost his hand, no matter, he still has to produce the same signature". Quite amazing really. FD's policy and the ICO not being able to see anything wrong in it. ps, I do have some statements, I even know when the account was closed because they told me in a letter, unfortunately, neither is a signature that matches the one on record.

thanx Ford, they are good links sadly, they don't answer my question. They do say how to challenge the SD, even at the bankryptcy hearing, but nothing after that. I do know a bankruptcy can be rescinded within a short time after the adjudication, but don't know if a defective SD is one of them. I suspect not, an suspect that the bankruptcy hearing 'validates' the SD and overcomes any defect with it if it is not challenged.

it did have a cheque book, but I don't think I wrote a cheque for probably about 6 years - it was switch after that. Thats the problem - because I wasn't writing cheques, my signature changed bit by bit, and then after my accident, it was too difficult and painful to write 'fancy' so my signature is pretty simple and plain now. they were obviously happy that the cheques matched what they had on record. Direct debits I think were set up over the phone, no forms to fill etc (that was the point of it being a phone bank, there was the minimum of forms etc) the account was pretty dormant the couple of years it was used until they closed it the only time things were signed was cheques, and they've being dying out for a good few years now. In all the time I was with them, I don't think I ever wrote to them apart from the SAR and a few letters immediately before that. There is no doubt I have supplied enough info to ID me, more than any other bank or data provider has had, but they have their procedures which are inflexible, and only a matching signature will do. This is obviously a problem for anyone suffering a severe disability such as loss of a limb, blindness or stroke etc. Their answer is that they will accept Power of Attorney, which of course costs money. Quite honesty, I dont understand the ICOs position, but they won't budge either, it seems obviously wrong that they will correspond with one signature and supply copy statements etc, but won't process a SAR from the same signature because it doesn't match what they have on record. Surely, if the signature doesnt match what they have on record, they shouldn't be supplying any info, for any reason, but they have.

thanks for moving it, although it seems to be in the same place to me. Did I put it in the wrong place?

thanks for your comments rdm, unfortunately, although you, me, and the others that have posted advice about their stance are all on the same page, FD disagree and the ICO have said they are not breaking the DPA. I have asked the ICO how the hell a bank can write to someone at an address for years, and send them copies of statements and letters when asked, but refuse to process a SAR because signatures don't match. I have gone over it chapter and verse with FD, it is their procedure that signatures match so a SAR won't be processed unless it does. The fact that they have sent copies of statements and letters to the same addrsss is irrelevant because that wasn't done according to their DPA procedures. They will not send anything to a HSBC branch because it is not their policy. They will not accept anything other than matching signatures or a Power of attorney. I suspect that they wouldn't respect a PoA either. Unfortunately, as the ICO have said they are not breaching the DPA, the bank will not budge - why should they? The so called watchdog have said they are not doing anything wrong. The ICO know they have been sending stuff to the same address but refuse to process a SAR because the signatures don't match. So, if they say that's ok, the bank will stick to its policy. I did point out to the ICO that if FDs policy for processing a SAR was to instruct a customer to attend a meeting at Southend town hall at 2.57pm on the first Wednesday of the following month (unless it was raining when the meeting would be the second Thursday), and that he must be accompanied by 2 policmen and a Justice of the Peace who all know the customer personally, and have a combined age of between 90 and 105, and that the customer must present their passport and copies of utility bills going back at least 7 years with no gaps, and copies of their school reports, and that he must pass a general knowledge quiz and achieve at least 70%, that just because it is the banks policy does not mean it is fair, or reasonable, or compatible with the DPA. Similarly, requiring a signature that matches the old one they have on record before processing a SAr may be theiur policy, but is not necessarily fair when due to old age etc the person is not capable of producing that signature even if he knew what it looked like, and nor is it necessarily fair to respond to a letter and supply copy statmenets and letters, but then refuse to process a SAR which is essentually copies of all statments and letters even though the signatures and addresses are the same. Unfortunately, the ICO don't agree that FDs policy is unfair or that it is unreasonable to respond to letters but then ignore a SAR request when they are signed the same. The ICO don't apparently believe that being selective about which signatures match and which they will respond to is incompatible with the DPA. FD feel they can do so because they process SARs different from other stuff. They also don't feel it incompatible or inconsistent to send DCAs after me, and for the DCAs to respond to my letters even though ALL letters bear the same signature regardless of if they are to a DCA, a dept of FD or for a SAR. Its all ok say the ICO. # So, if more banks adopt the same process of refusing SARs on spurious technical reasons, it could make it really difficult to fight them. At the moment, a SAR is the only way to find out of the bank has a conforming agreement with your signature because they often send a reconstructed agreement after a CCA request. If you can't get a SAR, you don't know what grounds you're on, you can't calculate any unfair charges etc. Good tactic. "Unfortunately CR has only made 40 odd posts on this site rather than in excess of 2000 that I have made. That does not make me any better or worse, but it does mean I've more experience of the site. CR - I learnt by making mistakes of posting too bluntly too and it can cause offence and alienate you from help. As I pointed out I assumed it was out of frustration, a bit you seem to have overlooked, and then spent some time trying to help. If the help was not useful then that is unfortunate, but have you really written to FD stating the law as I set it out for you after spending some time looking it up? Have you actually put it to them in black and white quotiing exactly what the law says? I doubt it - if you have, then I apologise, but I can't see that you've mentioned that anywhere." I don't consider the number of posts a person makes is relevant. 60000 posts each recommending a person makes a cca request and then puts the account into dispute if the response is late isn't much of an achievement. But in any case, i have 40 odd posts under this username. I have many more under another, but after my accident I was unable to remeber that name. Quantity is not the same as quality. and yes, I have written chapter and verse to FD explaining why I think their policy is not in accordance with the spirit of the DPA. That includes quotes from relevant parts of the ICOs guidelines about what may be taken as adequate proof of identity, and a paper on the form and use of a signature, and how it is accepted in law that a signature is not proof of identity. To put it bluntly, FD don't care about being fair or reasonable, they only care that their own procedure is followed, and the ICO don't care that the policy is restrictive, only that there is a policy that meets the minimum requirements of the DPA. The fact is, if a bank wants to avoid breaking the DPA, in reagrds of SARs all it has to do is be really stringent and pedantic about its policy - if you don't accept any SARS, you won't give the info to the wrong people, and as the ICO don't care about unfairly restricting access to a customer's own data, they won't get into trouble for it. And if it helps prevent people defending themselves from unfair charges or from non-existent or non-conforming agreements, then even better, especially when you consider that the £10 max charge cannot begin to cover the costs of processing the SAR! An all round win for the bank! as I said, good tactic. No, great tactic.

good luck to you 247, I hope you win